Discussion Title: There should be further research on solar geoengineering.

1. There should be further research on solar geoengineering.
1.1. It is ethical for us to pursue solar geoengineering research.
1.1.1. Con: Would be unnatural interference
1.1.1.1. Pro: Another means for ruling nature in a fundamentally wrong direction. \(Gardiner\) [papers.ssrn.com](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1357162)
1.1.1.2. Pro: By deploying, man subjects the earth without restraint to his will and betrays its prior God-given purpose. 
\(from: Johannes Paul II, Centesimus annus, cited by Betz\)
[www.argunet.org](http://www.argunet.org/2013/05/13/mapping-the-climate-engineering-controversy-a-case-of-argument-analysis-driven-policy-advice/)
1.1.1.2.1. Con: Climate change is a problem brought about by flawed humans exercising their free will. Humans also have the free will to reverse it. \(Slate\) [www.slate.com](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/05/conservative_christians_and_climate_change_five_arguments_for_why_one_should.html)
1.1.1.2.2. Pro: Some Christians believe that \(a\) this is the apocalypse, that the end of the world is upon us, and/or \(b\) God will save us.
\(Slate\) [www.slate.com](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/05/conservative_christians_and_climate_change_five_arguments_for_why_one_should.html)  \(Oxford Research Encyclopedias\)
[climatescience.oxfordre.com](http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-335)
1.1.1.2.2.1. Con: In the Bible \(Thessalonians\), the apostle Paul cautions against simply waiting for the world's end.
\(Slate\)
[www.slate.com](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/05/conservative_christians_and_climate_change_five_arguments_for_why_one_should.html)
1.1.1.2.3. Con: Man's destruction of the world is a sin. Urgent action against climate change should be added to traditional Christian acts of mercy. \(Pope Francis\) [www.theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/01/pope-francis-calls-on-christians-to-embrace-green-agenda)
1.1.1.2.4. Pro: This may be a way for people of the wold to unite and facilitate the rise of the Antichrist.
\(Extended from an argument against global climate change in Christian Science Monitor\)
[www.csmonitor.com](https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2017/0808/How-climate-change-became-a-question-of-faith)
1.1.1.3. Con: We have already "unnaturally" impacted the world through technology in the wrong direction; this is the least we can do.
1.1.1.4. Pro: Any form of solar geoengineering that poses threats of catastrophe cannot be used as a precautionary measure against another catastrophe - climate change \(Hartzell-Nichols\). [tandfonline.com](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21550085.2012.685561)
1.1.1.5. Pro: Too unpredictable
1.1.1.5.1. Pro: As long as the side-effects cannot be reliably predicted, deployment is morally wrong. \(Jamieson 1996\)
[link.springer.com](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00142580)
1.1.2. Pro: The moral decision can be postponed
1.1.2.1. Con: Insufficient institutional ability to regulate research and deployment
1.1.2.1.1. Pro: If commercial development is permitted, actors might act purely in business interest \(Robock, ETC\)
1.1.2.1.1.1. Con: Capitalism can serve as a double-edged sword; competition will produce the best product
1.1.2.1.1.2. Pro: Capitalism could also be detrimental by causing corruption and withholding of information
1.1.2.1.1.3. Con: With the general desire to move towards clean energy, the industry is thriving with competition to see who can develop the best clean tech first! [edf.org](https://www.edf.org/blog/2013/04/26/oil-and-gas-industrys-assault-renewable-energy)
1.1.2.1.2. Pro: Our social and institutional systems are not capable of controlling risk technologies on a long time scale. 
\(Corner & Pidgeon\)
[www.tandfonline.com](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00139150903479563)
1.1.2.1.2.1. Con: Any geoengineering scheme that adversely affects regional climate would violate the Use of Environmental Modification Techniques \(ENMOD\).
\(Robock\)
[atmos.washington.edu](https://atmos.washington.edu/2010Q1/111/20Reasons.pdf)
1.1.2.1.2.2. Pro: The NDCs in the Paris Agreement provide little basis for the regulation of CDR or solar geoengineering technologies.
\(Craik & Burns, Geoengineering special report, [www.cigionline.org](https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/documents/GeoEngineering%20Primer%20-%20Special%20Report.pdf)\)
1.1.2.1.2.2.1. Con: The procedural mechanisms of the Paris Agreement may have the potential to satisfy solar geoengineering research governance demands for transparency and public deliberation.
\(Craik & Burns [www.cigionline.org](https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/documents/GeoEngineering%20Primer%20-%20Special%20Report.pdf)\)
1.1.2.1.2.2.2. Pro: The US, a supposed leader in climate change, pulled out of the Paris Accords earlier this year \(Zhang\)[sciencedirect.com](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927817301028)
1.1.2.1.2.3. Con: Particularly in times of crisis, the UN has been effective in coordinating scientific collaboration \(White House\)[clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov](https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/html/00426_7.html)
1.1.2.1.3. Pro: Once technology is made, it is ungovernable! 
\(Keith, Irvine\)
[agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016EF000465)
1.1.2.1.4. Pro: Who will be held responsible for any harm caused by the technology?
1.1.2.2. Pro: Something is better than nothing!
1.1.2.2.1. Pro: There isn't time to debate, we should begin to prepare now!
1.1.2.2.1.1. Con: We got ourselves into this problem by failing to prove a technology is safe before implementing it, we should not make the same mistake on a larger scale.
1.1.2.2.1.2. Pro: Current climate change may be entirely irreversible if we do not implement such technology soon.
1.1.2.2.2. Pro: Solar geoengineering is the lesser of two evils
1.1.2.2.2.1. Pro: Global climate change shifts our responsibility for intervention in nature, demanding large-scale interventions such as geoengineering.
1.1.2.2.2.2. Pro: Even with ambitious mitigation policies, we might fail to achieve the 2-degree target such that deployment is the lesser of two evils.
\(Betz\)
[www.argunet.org](http://www.argunet.org/2013/05/13/mapping-the-climate-engineering-controversy-a-case-of-argument-analysis-driven-policy-advice/)
1.1.2.3. Pro: We should at least begin the research
1.1.2.3.1. Con: Too much uncertainty
1.1.2.3.1.1. Pro: Complex technical interventions on a long time scale are susceptible to human error and hence unpredictable. 
\(Robock\)
[atmos.washington.edu](https://atmos.washington.edu/2010Q1/111/20Reasons.pdf)
1.1.2.3.2. Pro: Appropriate institutional/governance frameworks can be established.
1.1.2.3.2.1. Pro: The deadlock on research can be broken by accepting government authority over research and declaring a moratorium on large-scale geoengineering. 
\(Parson & Keith\) [science.sciencemag.org](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6125/1278)
1.1.2.3.2.2. Pro: There is precedent for managing international liability of the kind that would arise from solar geoengineering intervention.
\(Horton\)
[www.nyuelj.org](http://www.nyuelj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Horton_READY_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf)
1.1.2.3.2.2.1. Pro: State-based liability mechanisms, compensation funds, compulsory insurance etc. have helped resolve disputes between states and other international actors. \(e.g. Space Liability Convention and oil spill regime\) 
\(Horton\)
[www.nyuelj.org](http://www.nyuelj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Horton_READY_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf)
1.1.2.3.2.3. Pro: Collaboration on an international level will allow for a product of the highest possible quality.
1.1.2.3.3. Pro: Research can help minimize the worst case scenario.
1.1.2.3.3.1. Pro: Scientific progress might allow us to robustly rule out the worst case that geoengineering will aggravate climate impacts when we actually deploy.
\(Betz\)
[www.argunet.org](http://www.argunet.org/2013/05/13/mapping-the-climate-engineering-controversy-a-case-of-argument-analysis-driven-policy-advice/)
1.1.2.3.3.2. Pro: Even modest reductions in uncertainty about the side-effects of solar geoengineering can reduce the overall costs of climate change in the order of 10%.
\(Moreno-Cruz & Keith\)
[keith.seas.harvard.edu](https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/files/tkg/files/117.moreno-cruz.climpoluncert-caseforgeoeng.e.pdf)
1.1.2.3.4. Con: Technology developers are enthusiasts who typically under-estimate  costs and overestimate benefits.
1.1.2.3.5. Pro: The technology itself is neutral.
1.1.2.3.5.1. Pro: The technology itself is neutral so its mere development cannot be prohibited. 
\(Goodell\)
grist.org
1.1.2.3.5.2. Con: The future of Earth should not be staked on an arrangement built by the lowest bidder.
\(Robock\)
[atmos.washington.edu](https://atmos.washington.edu/2010Q1/111/20Reasons.pdf)
1.1.2.3.6. Pro: R&D should not be constrained.
1.1.2.3.6.1. Pro: Once the tech has been developed, then decisions can be made about implementation \(Cited as Gardiner, Jamieson by Betz\). argunet.org
1.1.2.3.7. Con: No viable exit option.
1.1.3. Pro: Should be ready for the worst case scenario
1.1.3.1. Con: Climate change will not be an all at once singular worst case scenario, but is a gradually growing problem.
1.1.3.2. Pro: We ought to "arm the future"
1.1.4. Con: Will perpetuate inequality
1.1.4.1. Pro: Burden on future generations
1.1.4.1.1. Pro: Might aggravate the situation of those who are globally worse off. 
\(Cited as Rawls by Betz\)
[www.argunet.org](http://www.argunet.org/2013/05/13/mapping-the-climate-engineering-controversy-a-case-of-argument-analysis-driven-policy-advice/)
1.1.4.1.1.1. Pro: Rich governments and industry will devote their resources to geoengineering instead of helping the global South fend off the chaos ahead.
\(ETC, The CaseAgainst Geoengineering\)
[www.cbd.int](https://www.cbd.int/doc/emerging-issues/etcgroup-geopiracy-2011-013-en.pdf)
1.1.4.1.1.2. Pro: Only the world's richest countries have the necessary resources.
\(ETC, The Case Against Geoengineering\)
[www.cbd.int](https://www.cbd.int/doc/emerging-issues/etcgroup-geopiracy-2011-013-en.pdf)
1.1.4.1.1.3. Con: Developing countries have also begun to consider solar geoengineering as an option.
1.1.4.1.1.3.1. Pro: African countries want to invest in building capacity in this area so that they can have their own agency.
\(Governance of Research on Solar Geoengineering: African Perspectives
[open.spotify.com](https://open.spotify.com/user/spotify/playlist/37i9dQZF1DWXmlLSKkfdAk?si=ppfSARoGSgikD0r9AqmUTA)\)
1.1.4.1.1.3.2. Pro: India has begun to discuss the policy and governance issues around solar geoengineering.
\(Geoengineering & India, Meeting Report\)
[eprints.iisc.ernet.in](http://eprints.iisc.ernet.in/57759/1/Cur_Sci_113-3_376_2017.pdf)
1.1.4.1.1.3.3. Con: Governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America should be suspicious of governments, industries or scientists of the biggest carbon-emitting states.
\(ETC, The Case Against Geoengineering\)
www.cbd.int
1.1.4.1.1.4. Pro: The major private sector players will likely be the same energy, chemical, forestry, and agribusiness companies that created the problem.
\(ETC, The Case Against Geoengineering\)
www.cbd.int
1.1.4.1.2. Pro: R&D is a rationalization for passing the buck to future generations. 
\(Gardiner\) 
[papers.ssrn.com](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1357162)
\(Jamieson\)
[link.springer.com](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00142580)
1.1.4.1.3. Pro: We should avoid upfront a future situation in which we have to choose between two evils. \(Gardiner\) [papers.ssrn.com](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1357162)
1.1.4.2. Con: Could enormously decrease harm to people suffering from the impacts of climate change
1.1.4.2.1. Con: Those who are already severely impacted by climate change may face the brunt of the impacts of geoengineering.
1.1.4.2.2. Pro: Those that are poor and members of marginalized groups are most severely affected by climate change, so it the responsibility of wealthy members of industrialized nations to deploy this technology.
1.1.4.2.3. Con: According to the UK Royal Society, "the greatest challenges to the successful deployment of geoengineering may be the social, ethical, legal, and political issues associated with governance, rather than scientiﬁc and technical issues."[onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu](https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/doi/epdf/10.1002/wcc.198)
1.1.4.3. Pro: How can we implement a technology without the consent of all of those affected?
1.1.4.3.1. Con: This will affect all organisms enormously and may affect human livelihoods etc., so we can't produce such life-altering results without the existence of some system of global governance.
1.1.4.3.2. Pro: There are so many technologies that people around the world are currently feeling the effects of that no one has consented to \(most notably the use of fossil fuels and resulting global climate change\).
1.2. The potential scientific benefits of solar geoengineering support further research.
1.2.1. Pro: Could have major ecological and human health benefits
1.2.1.1. Pro: Potential to help with plant productivity by removing extremely high levels of CO2[scholar.harvard.edu](https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dschrag/files/155._exploring_the_effects_of_solar_radiation_management_2016.pdf) \(Dagon and Schrag 2015\).
1.2.1.1.1. Pro: Plants will no longer be over-worked by the exuberant amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere
1.2.1.2. Pro: Could help with rise of sea water levels[technologyreview.com](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/) \(Rotman 2013\).
1.2.1.2.1. Pro: Could help with slowing the melting of ice caps
1.2.1.2.2. Con: Does not address ocean acidity issue since no CO2 is removed from the atmosphere.
1.2.1.3. Con: Deployment will trigger a loss of wilderness on an unprecedented scale.
\(Betz\)
[www.argunet.org](http://www.argunet.org/2013/05/13/mapping-the-climate-engineering-controversy-a-case-of-argument-analysis-driven-policy-advice/)
1.2.1.4. Pro: This would prolong the health of the earth, and thus, human health
1.2.1.4.1. Pro: Without technical counterbalances, climate change might endanger the survival of the entire human species. 
\(Corner & Pidgeon\)
[www.tandfonline.com](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00139150903479563)
1.2.1.4.2. Pro: CO2 exposure is linked to "hyperventilation, vision damage, lung congestion, central nervous system injury, abrupt muscle contractions, elevated blood pressure, and shortness of breath" \(Tox Town\). [toxtown.nlm.nih.gov](https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/chemicals.php?id=6)
1.2.1.4.3. Pro: Longterm exposure, which current CO2 levels are causing, can also cause dizziness, headache, sweating, fatigue, numbness, memory loss, nausea, vomiting, and skin and eye burns \(Nirvana\). [nirvana.fitness](http://nirvana.fitness/co2-health-effects-uses-and-benefits-01-10-2015.html)
1.2.1.4.4. Pro: The impacts of rising temperatures has already been affecting the US population due to the air being inhaled \(Jacobson\).[news.stanford.edu](https://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/co-010908.html)
1.2.1.4.5. Con: Introducing new unknowns to the environment could have unknown impacts to the human population.
1.2.1.5. Pro: The number of natural disasters has more than tripled since 1970 – 90% being weather related \(EDF\). [edf.org](https://www.edf.org/climate/why-you-need-care-about-climate-change-now)
1.2.2. Pro: Would include mitigation efforts
1.2.2.1. Pro: If mitigation efforts are carried out AND highly effective CDR methods are available, solar geoengineering may not have to be deployed for more than a decade 
\(Wigley in Goodell\)
[grist.org](https://grist.org/article/2010-03-11-jeff-goodell-geoengineering/full/)
1.2.2.2. Pro: An optimal policy which minimizes irreversible, harmful and uncertain events includes both emissions reductions and solar geoengineering.
\(Heutel, Cruz, Shayegh\)
[www.nber.org](http://www.nber.org/papers/w21589.pdf)
1.2.2.2.1. Pro: Solar geoengineering should be included in the policy package for 2 reasons - \(1\) it provides a means to control temperature at a potentially lower cost than mitigation, and \(2\) it can be used as insurance against the risk of reaching a climate tipping point. 
\(Heutel, Moreno-Cruz, Shayegh\)
[www.nber.org](http://www.nber.org/papers/w21589.pdf)
1.2.2.3. Con: Solar geoengineering becomes less preferred to mitigation as climate uncertainty increases. 
\(Emmerling and Tavoni, Heutel in Harding & Moreno-Cruz\)
[agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016EF000462)
1.2.2.3.1. Pro: When accounting for uncertainty in the magnitude of solar geoengineering's side-effects and their persistency over time, it lacks robustness.
\(Bahn, Chesney et al
[www.ethz.ch](https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/usys/iac/iac-dam/documents/group/climphys/knutti/publications/bahn15esp.pdf)\)
1.2.3. Pro: Could be a last resort
1.2.3.1. Con: We do not know how to recall a planetary-scale technology once it has been released \(ETC\). [www.cbd.int](https://www.cbd.int/doc/emerging-issues/etcgroup-geopiracy-2011-013-en.pdf)
1.2.3.2. Con: Only neutralizes a fraction of all anthropogenic climate impacts. \(Gardiner by Betz\) [www.argunet.org](http://www.argunet.org/2013/05/13/mapping-the-climate-engineering-controversy-a-case-of-argument-analysis-driven-policy-advice/) \(Robock\)
[atmos.washington.edu](https://atmos.washington.edu/2010Q1/111/20Reasons.pdf)
1.2.3.3. Pro: We must be ready for the worst case scenario \(Crutzen\).
[agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017EF000735)
1.2.3.3.1. Pro: Immediate research will ensure that it is ready for a future point in time.
1.2.3.3.2. Con: Climate change will not be an all at once singular worst case scenario, but is a gradually growing problem.
1.2.3.4. Pro: We're already out of time! The question is no longer whether the world can reduce temperature rise to our goals, but by how much we'll miss that target \(Pasztor. [www.c2g2.net](https://www.c2g2.net/wp-content/uploads/Pasztor_The-Need-for-Governance-of-Geoengineering.pdf)
1.2.3.4.1. Pro: There is a roughly 5 percent to 10 percent chance that the eventual average temperature could be 6 degrees Celsius higher.
Wagner & Weitzman
[gwagner.com](http://gwagner.com/books/climate-shock/)
1.2.3.5. Pro: Only with a ready technology can atmospheric CO2 level be reduced to prevent continental ice sheets from disintegrating. \(Hansen & Greene, in Betz: [books.google.com](https://books.google.com/books?id=IlLTchqDo_EC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=Palaeo-climatic+data+testify+that+continental+ice+sheets+might+disintegrate+at+slightly+higher+global+temperatures+than+today.&source=bl&ots=K_iG7PYnN1&sig=U1f6vEI7nhL7QVkgwvB5fLJGxWc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRm7LP_pHbAhVmxlQKHUPiB38Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=Palaeo-climatic%20data%20testify%20that%20continental%20ice%20sheets%20might%20disintegrate%20at%20slightly%20higher%20global%20temperatures%20than%20today.&f=false)\)
1.2.3.6. Pro: At the very least, solar geoengineering research could buy us more time
1.2.3.6.1. Con: Sick patient analogy: earth might turn out to resemble a hopelessly sick patient, whom we would treat with a highly risky and poorly understood therapy. 
\(Lovelock in Goodell\)
[grist.org](https://grist.org/article/2010-03-11-jeff-goodell-geoengineering/full/)
1.2.3.6.2. Pro: If climate change solutions are mobilized in the next 10-15 years, they could provide 37% of the change needed for the planet. But if action is delayed until after 2030, that number drops to 33%, and drops again to only 22% after 2050 \(Griscom\)! [global.nature.org](https://global.nature.org/initiatives/natural-climate-solutions/natures-make-or-break-potential-for-climate-change)
1.2.3.6.3. Pro: If we do not move towards a solution, the environmental impacts will only accelerate \(Cornell\). [climatechange.cornell.edu](http://climatechange.cornell.edu/is-climate-change-slowing-down-2/)
1.2.3.6.4. Pro: Drastic changes in energy consumption could turn around the   current effects of climate change \(Yale\). [e360.yale.edu](https://e360.yale.edu/features/how_far_can_technology_go_to_stave_off_climate_change)
1.2.3.6.5. Con: If this is not a solution we know can solve all foreseeable impacts, we should divert our attention towards alternatives that will.
1.2.4. Con: Just tinkers with symptoms instead of addressing causes
1.2.4.1. Pro: Solar geoengineering may reduce globally-averaged warming, but that it not what causes climate damage! \(Hulme 2013\) [theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/climate-science-geoengineering-save-world)
1.2.4.2. Pro: Solar geoengineering merely serves as a "technological fix" \(Weinberg\).[onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu](https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/doi/epdf/10.1002/wcc.198)"
1.2.4.2.1. Pro: Effectively addressing climate change demands a total social transformation that places demands on individuals. Solar geoengineering merely allows people to avoid making such changes.
1.2.4.2.2. Con: The social transformation necessary will take too long and has clearly not been sufficient thus far.
1.2.4.3. Pro: Compared to starting a flood to stop a fire[tandfonline.com](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21550085.2014.926056)
1.2.4.4. Con: -> See 1.1.2.2.
1.2.5. Con: Could cause new risks to the environment
1.2.5.1. Pro: Aerosol particles serve as surfaces for chemical reactions that destroy ozone in the same way that water and nitric acid aerosols in polar stratospheric clods produce the seasonal Antarctic ozone hole.
\(Robock\)
[atmos.washington.edu](https://atmos.washington.edu/2010Q1/111/20Reasons.pdf)
1.2.5.2. Pro: Solar geoengineering reduces direct solar radiation and increases diffuse radiation, thus allowing plant canopies to photosynthesize and increasing their capacity  as a carbon sink.
\(Robock\)
[atmos.washington.edu](https://atmos.washington.edu/2010Q1/111/20Reasons.pdf)
1.2.5.2.1. Pro: Could disrupt lives of organisms who are dependent on sunlight \(Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration 2013\) [etcgroup.org](http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/etc_briefing_why_srm_experiments_are_bad_idea_0.pdf)
1.2.5.3. Pro: Aerosol particles injected into the stratosphere may seed cirrus cloud formations in the troposphere.
\(Robock\)
[atmos.washington.edu](https://atmos.washington.edu/2010Q1/111/20Reasons.pdf)
1.2.5.4. Pro: Even a 1.8% reduction in solar radiation would significantly affect the radiation available for solar power systems.
\(Robock\)
[atmos.washington.edu](https://atmos.washington.edu/2010Q1/111/20Reasons.pdf)
1.2.5.4.1. Pro: Reduces solar energy that reaches earth which could be detrimental to solar energy powered technology [e360.yale.edu](https://e360.yale.edu/features/solar_geoengineering_weighing_costs_of_blocking_the_suns_rays) \(Jones 2014\)
1.2.5.5. Pro: Some believe that solar geoengineering is akin to "Chemtrails": airplanes are spraying a toxic mix of chemicals through contrails, with supposed goals ranging from weather to mind control. \(Naomi Wolf\)
1.2.5.5.1. Con: Conspiratorial views have accounted for ~ 60% of geoengineering discourse on social media over the past decade. Of that, Twitter has accounted for \>90%, compared to ~ 75% of total geoengineering mentions. Further affinity analysis reveals a broad online community of conspiracy.
\(Tingley & Wagner\)
[www.nature.com](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-017-0014-3)
1.2.5.6. Con: Small-scale modeling can be performed to test for effects
1.2.5.6.1. Pro: Can be observed on a minor scale by using aerosol injections into earth's atmosphere \(Llanos 2015\). [large.stanford.edu](http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/llanos2/)
1.2.5.6.2. Pro: Estimates for cost of implementation by naval rifles in the range $0.25–$0.5 billion \(very low considering its impact\) \(Harding and Moreno-Cruz 2016\). [agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016EF000462)
1.2.5.6.3. Con: Large-scale field tests amount to full-fledged deployment \(Parson & Keith\). [science.sciencemag.org](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6125/1278)
1.2.5.6.4. Pro: Regularly adjusting the amount of solar geoengineering in response to departures of observed global mean climate state from the objective can manage uncertainties and result in achievement of climate change objective \(McMartin, et al.\) [iopscience.iop.org](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/4/044006/pdf)
1.2.5.6.5. Pro: The solution for questions about solar geoengineering having negative side effects is three-fold and can be addressed via modeling: \(Keith & McMartin 2015\) [nature.com](http://nature.com)
1.2.5.6.5.1. Pro: 1\) moderation to avoid the benefits eventually plateauing off
1.2.5.6.5.2. Pro: 2\) quality environmental feedback via the model
1.2.5.6.5.3. Pro: 3\) temporary usage of solar geoengineering to mitigate its drawbacks
1.2.5.7. Pro: Other concerns include: ocean solidification \(which solar geoengineering does not actually solve\), human respiratory issues, noise pollution, could further damage ozone layer
1.2.6. Con: Risks may not be worth bearing
1.2.6.1. Pro: Too risky - an abrupt halt mid-deployment would result in rapid climate warming which is worse than gradual global warming \(Robock\). 
[atmos.washington.edu](https://atmos.washington.edu/2010Q1/111/20Reasons.pdf)
1.2.6.1.1. Pro: By not dealing with the root cause of climate change, the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, researchers have predicted that a sudden suspension in the implementation of solar geoengineering could cause climate change to resume at a much quicker pace than prior to the implementation of solar geoengineering \[Matthews and Caldeira, 2007\].
In [agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016EF000462)
1.2.6.1.2. Pro: If discontinued, CO2 levels could rapidly spiral back to current levels \(Keith and Irvine 2016\)[agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016EF000465)
1.2.6.1.2.1. Pro: Could return back and have even worse feedback effects
1.2.6.2. Pro: Does not reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere or the oceans
\(Matthews\)
[agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL037488)
1.2.6.2.1. Pro: Climate engineering would have no effect on other important consequences of climate change—such as ocean acidification—which are caused not by increased global temperature, but by the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
\(Ko\)
[www.kialo.com](https://www.kialo.com/solar-radiation-management-considerations-v2-9685/9685.0=9685.42/=9685.42/new-con)
1.2.6.3. Pro: The risks associated with solar geoengineering are much higher than with carbon geoengineering or emissions reduction. 
\(Barrett & Moreno-Cruz\)
[voxeu.org](https://voxeu.org/sites/default/files/file/barret%20and%20moreno-cruz.pdf)
1.2.6.3.1. Con: Mitigation is also, to some extent, irreversible.
\(Betz\)
1.2.6.3.2. Con: Additional acidity caused by sulfate injections would be negligibly greater than levels that resulted from air pollution.
\(Budyko\)
1.2.6.3.2.1. Con: The relevant quantity is the total amount of acid that reaches the ground. Any additional acid deposition would harm the ecosystem. More acidic particles in the troposphere would affect public health.
\(Robock\)
[atmos.washington.edu](https://atmos.washington.edu/2010Q1/111/20Reasons.pdf)
1.2.6.3.3. Pro: It may have unexpected negative side effects, like affecting tropical monsoons.
[theconversation.com](https://theconversation.com/can-solar-geoengineering-be-part-of-responsible-climate-policy-51016)
\(BBC\)
[www.bbc.com](http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30197085)
1.2.6.4. Con: Solar geoengineering may be reversible.
1.2.6.4.1. Pro: Even a high degree of solar geoengineering cooling could be stopped without inducing termination shock if it were slowly ramped down over decades. 
\(Keith and MacMartin \[2015\] in Reynolds, Parker, Irvine\)
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
1.2.6.4.2. Pro: If solar geoengineering were only exerting a low degree of cooling, then it could be switched off suddenly without risking termination shock. \(Kosugi \[2013\] in Reynolds, Parker, Irvine
onlinelibrary.wiley.com\)
1.2.6.4.3. Con: If deployment is terminated abruptly, rapid and catastrophic climate change ensues. 
\(Robock\)
atmos.washington.edu
1.2.6.4.4. Con: If discontinued, CO2 levels could rapidly spiral back to current levels \(Keith and Irvine 2016\) [agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016EF000465)
1.2.6.4.5. Pro: Solar geoengineering deployment of any scale could be phased out without any temperature rises at all if it coincided with the large-scale use of carbon dioxide \(CO2\) removal techniques \[Shepherd et al., 2009\]. 
Reynolds, Parker, Irvine
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
1.3. From a political and social standpoint, we should invest in solar geoengineering research.
1.3.1. Pro: Relatively inexpensive technology
1.3.1.1. Pro: Direct/indirect cost is far lower than mitigation and adaptation.
1.3.1.1.1. Pro: Stratospheric aerosol injection \(SAI\) costs could
be 1000 times lower than the average costs of climate
mitigation.
Royal Society [royalsociety.org](https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf)
1.3.1.2. Con: There is a high opportunity cost.
1.3.1.2.1. Pro: Waste of resources – we have more pressing needs 
\(Gardiner\)
[link.springer.com](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0764-x)
1.3.1.2.2. Pro: May foreclose critical investment into efficient tech or renewable energies.
\(Betz\)
[www.argunet.org](http://www.argunet.org/2013/05/13/mapping-the-climate-engineering-controversy-a-case-of-argument-analysis-driven-policy-advice/)
1.3.1.2.3. Pro: It would be a safer and wiser investment for society to put the money in solar power, wind power, energy efficiency, and carbon sequestration.
\(Robock\)
[atmos.washington.edu](https://atmos.washington.edu/2010Q1/111/20Reasons.pdf)
1.3.1.3. Con: Indirect costs could be high.
1.3.1.3.1. Pro: Not cheap if one considers indirect costs that arise due to unintended side effects
\(Gardiner\)
[link.springer.com](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0764-x)
1.3.1.3.1.1. Pro: The final bill for solar geoengineering deployment seems likely to be substantially higher because of hidden costs like climate impact, security, monitoring.
Reynolds, Parker, Irvine
[onlinelibrary.wiley.com](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full)
1.3.1.3.2. Pro: Geoengineering facilities, as Critical National
Infrastructure, would require significant levels of
protection.
CGG briefing
[www.geoengineering-governance-research.org](http://www.geoengineering-governance-research.org/perch/resources/cgg-briefing-note-3securitysolarge-1.pdf)
1.3.1.4. Con: There have been no definitive cost studies.
1.3.1.4.1. Pro: There have been no definitive cost studies, and estimates of large-scale government projects are always too low.
\(Robock\)
[atmos.washington.edu](https://atmos.washington.edu/2010Q1/111/20Reasons.pdf)
1.3.1.4.1.1. Pro: More robust quantitative analysis is needed to determine costs, such as integrated assessment models \(IAM\), and disintegrated climate-economy model \(DICE\).
\(Harding & Moreno-Cruz
[agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016EF000462)\)
1.3.1.5. Pro: Indirect costs would be low.
1.3.1.5.1. Con: Indirect costs are not being adequately quantified.
1.3.1.5.1.1. Pro: If SAI causes a major disturbance in the pattern of monsoons in Asia and Africa, the indirect impacts on farming and food security could be immense. Just because it is hard to quantify the costs is not a good reason to present the ‘economics’ as consisting of poorly established low direct-cost estimates, themselves resulting from naïve assumptions, plus unquantifiable but potentially huge risks which carry very high associated costs. 
[www.geoengineering-governance-research.org](http://www.geoengineering-governance-research.org/perch/resources/cgg-briefing-note-2economicsofge-1.pdf)
1.3.1.5.1.2. Pro: There have been relatively few studies that attempt
to model the long-term impacts of geoengineering
technologies on a global scale and over long
future time periods. 
[www.geoengineering-governance-research.org](http://www.geoengineering-governance-research.org/perch/resources/cgg-briefing-note-2economicsofge-1.pdf)
1.3.1.6. Pro: Direct costs would be low.
1.3.1.6.1. Con: Albedo modification is so cheap that direct costs will not be the deciding issue.
\(Harding & Moreno-Cruz\)
[agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016EF000462)
1.3.1.6.2. Con: This is the tendency for early engineering-based estimates of the direct costs of such technologies to be gross under-estimates. 
CGG Briefing
[www.geoengineering-governance-research.org](http://www.geoengineering-governance-research.org/perch/resources/cgg-briefing-note-2economicsofge-1.pdf)
1.3.1.6.3. Con: Only a very small number of geoengineering technologies are expected to be cheap – and indeed all of the so-called carbon reduction technologies \(e.g. air capture of carbon,
enhanced weathering of rocks\) are anticipated – with
good reason – to be extremely expensive. 
CGG briefing
[www.geoengineering-governance-research.org](http://www.geoengineering-governance-research.org/perch/resources/cgg-briefing-note-2economicsofge-1.pdf)
1.3.1.6.4. Pro: The costs would be in the \(low\) range of $1-8 billion to deliver between 1-5 million tons of stratospheric aerosols per year.
\(McClellan, 2012, cited in Harding & Moreno-Cruz\)
[agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016EF000462)
1.3.1.6.5. Pro: Estimates for cost of implementation by naval rifles in the range $0.25–$0.5 billion \(very low considering its impact\)[agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016EF000462) \(Harding and Moreno-Cruz 2016\).
1.3.2. Con: Could be improperly and unfairly distributed and used
1.3.2.1. Pro: The technology could be used as a weapon.
1.3.2.1.1. Pro: Might serve as weapons of mass destruction. 
\(Corner & Pidgeon\)
[www.tandfonline.com](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00139150903479563)
\(Goodell\)
[grist.org](https://grist.org/article/2010-03-11-jeff-goodell-geoengineering/full/)
\(Robock\)
[atmos.washington.edu](https://atmos.washington.edu/2010Q1/111/20Reasons.pdf)
1.3.2.1.2. Pro: It puts future generations in a position to control the climate – might generate climate wars. 
\(Robock\)
[atmos.washington.edu](https://atmos.washington.edu/2010Q1/111/20Reasons.pdf)
1.3.2.1.3. Pro: The military/industrial complexes of countries can be reactionary in terms of climate policy 
\(Ott\)
[eprints.uni-kiel.de](http://eprints.uni-kiel.de/37282/)
1.3.2.1.3.1. Pro: The US has a long history of trying to modify weather for military purposes, including inducing rain during the Vietnam War to swamp North Vietnamese supply lines.
\(Robock\)
[atmos.washington.edu](https://atmos.washington.edu/2010Q1/111/20Reasons.pdf)
1.3.2.1.4. Con: Although the US used weather modification techniques in Vietnam, currently there are cheaper and more effective alternatives that are well integrated within established military doctrine.
CGG briefing
[www.geoengineering-governance-research.org](http://www.geoengineering-governance-research.org/perch/resources/cgg-briefing-note-3securitysolarge-1.pdf)
1.3.2.1.5. Con: Terrorists unlikely to use the technology given their limited technological capabilities, and the existence of more effective and cheaper, low-tech alternatives. 
CGG briefing
[www.geoengineering-governance-research.org](http://www.geoengineering-governance-research.org/perch/resources/cgg-briefing-note-3securitysolarge-1.pdf)
1.3.2.1.6. Con: The terms of the Use of Environmental Modification Techniques \(ENMOD\) explicitly prohibits the "military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage, or injury to any other State Party."
\(Robock\)
[atmos.washington.edu](https://atmos.washington.edu/2010Q1/111/20Reasons.pdf)
1.3.2.1.7. Con: This technology is no different from current technology that could have destructive capabilities
1.3.2.1.8. Con: Use of solar geoengineering as a weapon is unrealistic.
1.3.2.1.8.1. Pro: The use of weather modification by military or terrorists is incredibly unlikely given that there are more effective, less costly alternative weapons.
1.3.2.1.8.2. Pro: Most states have abandoned weather modification as a weapon because there is little evidence that it works.
1.3.2.1.8.3. Con: The United States used weather modification techniques in Vietnam in order to disrupt their logistics and deny access to terrains.
1.3.2.2. Pro: This technology could be unilaterally distributed by a nation that may believe they'll benefit from it.
1.3.2.2.1. Pro: Some evidence suggests that implementing such a technology could result in droughts in India and increased rainfall in China, possibly incentivizing unilateral implementation \[Keith\].
1.3.2.2.2. Con: We don't know enough about how the global impacts will be distributed, but there is no evidence that this unevenly distributed impact will be less equitable than projected climate change impacts.
1.3.2.3. Pro: Who gets to decide where the testing is done? Who gets the benefits?
1.3.2.4. Con: Improving environmental conditions would bring benefits to the entire globe.
1.3.3. Con: Could distract from mitigation
1.3.3.1. Pro: Status quo does not qualify as an emergency where such drastic measures would be necessary \(Hulme 2013\). [theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/climate-science-geoengineering-save-world https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2539?WT.feed_name=subjects_interdisciplinary-studieshttps://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2539?WT.feed_name=subjects_interdisciplinary-studies)
1.3.3.1.1. Pro: Questions about cost-effectiveness estimates cause concerns about using solar geoengineering. If we don’t have an actual way to reverse the damage we’ve already done, we might as well do nothing. \(Keith, Wagner, Zabel 2017\) [nature.com](https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3376)
1.3.3.2. Con: The moral hazard argument against geoengineering is underdetermined.
\(Hale [www.climate-engineering.eu](http://www.climate-engineering.eu/single/hale-benjamin-2012-the-world-that-would-have-been-moral-hazard-arguments-against-geoengineering-preliminar-publication.html)\)
1.3.3.3. Pro: Getting global legitimization is as difficult for this as it is for mitigation. \(Gardiner\)
link.springer.com
1.3.3.4. Pro: Solar geoengineering technology can only be amortized by a sufficiently long time period, which creates incentives for delaying mitigation. 
\(Klepper & Rickels\)
file:///Users/Malini/Downloads/316564.pdf
1.3.3.5. Con: By highlighting the limits of climate engineering, R&D will underline the importance of mitigation. \(Cited as Keith, Lovelock by Betz\)
[www.argunet.org](http://www.argunet.org/2013/05/13/mapping-the-climate-engineering-controversy-a-case-of-argument-analysis-driven-policy-advice/)
1.3.3.6. Pro: If humans view solar geoengineering as an easy technological fix that allows for "business as usual", they will not change consumption and energy patterns.
\(Robock\)
[atmos.washington.edu](https://atmos.washington.edu/2010Q1/111/20Reasons.pdf)
1.3.3.6.1. Pro: Solar geoengineering merely serves as a "technological fix" \(Weinberg\).[onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu](https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/doi/epdf/10.1002/wcc.198)"
1.3.3.6.1.1. Pro: Effectively addressing climate change demands a total social transformation that places demands on individuals. Solar geoengineering merely allows people to avoid making such changes.
1.3.3.6.1.2. Con: The social transformation necessary will take too long and has clearly not been sufficient thus far.
1.3.3.6.2. Pro: Will create new interest groups who oppose ambitious mitigation policies 
\(Corner & Pidgeon\)
[www.tandfonline.com](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00139150903479563)
1.3.3.6.3. Pro: Does not solve root problem! \(Morrow 2014\).[tandfonline.com](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21550085.2014.926056) - “Like starting a flood to stop a fire”
1.3.4. Con: Required cooperation and appropriate regulation unlikely
1.3.4.1. Con: -> See 1.1.2.3.2.
1.3.4.2. Pro: Countries unlikely to cooperate
1.3.4.2.1. Pro: Countries will not be able to agree on an optimal climate.For example, what if Russia wanted it a couple of degrees warmer, and India a couple of degrees cooler?
\(Robock\)
atmos.washington.edu
1.3.4.2.2. Pro: Countries may \(mis\)attribute the blame for extreme weather conditions to each other.
\(CGG briefing\)
www.geoengineering-governance-research.org
1.3.4.2.3. Pro: Runs the risk of premature rejection.
\(Bodansky\)
[poseidon01.ssrn.com](https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=375091000096113110064112077075064124060087060080003065108004069109065098104074084073057037122017121015000000064066015089097004029090059021059114011018091088026084058042063025031065079093102008085120099066119067086024116002084009078110029014093124088&EXT=pdf)
1.3.4.2.4. Pro: Getting global legitimization is as difficult for this as it is for mitigation. 
\(Gardiner\)
[link.springer.com](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0764-x)
1.3.4.2.4.1. Con: Easier to facilitate collective action with solar geoengineering than with carbon geoengineering or emission reduction. 
\(Barrett & Moreno-Cruz\)
[voxeu.org](https://voxeu.org/sites/default/files/file/barret%20and%20moreno-cruz.pdf)
1.3.4.2.4.1.1. Pro: Developing countries have also begun to consider solar geoengineering as an option.
1.3.4.2.4.1.1.1. Pro: African countries want to invest in building capacity in this area so that they can have their own agency about solar geoengineering.
\(Governance of Research on Solar Geoengineering: African Perspectives
[open.spotify.com](https://open.spotify.com/user/spotify/playlist/37i9dQZF1DWXmlLSKkfdAk?si=ppfSARoGSgikD0r9AqmUTA)\)
1.3.4.2.4.1.1.2. Pro: India has begun to discuss the policy and governance issues around solar geoengineering.
\(Geoengineering & India, Meeting Report\)
[eprints.iisc.ernet.in](http://eprints.iisc.ernet.in/57759/1/Cur_Sci_113-3_376_2017.pdf)
1.3.4.2.4.1.1.3. Con: There is no reason for the governments or peoples of most of Africa, Asia, and Latin America to trust that the governments, industries or scientists of the biggest carbon-emitting states will protect their interests. In the absence of demonstrable goodwill by the states likely to conduct geoengineering, the governments of the global South should be suspicious.
\(ETC, The Case Against Geoengineering\)
www.cbd.int
1.3.4.2.5. Con: A moratorium on research till international cooperation is achieved can ensure cooperation 
\(Goodell\)
[grist.org](https://grist.org/article/2010-03-11-jeff-goodell-geoengineering/full/)
1.3.4.2.5.1. Con: This may push research activities underground.
\(Parson & Keith\)
[science.sciencemag.org](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6125/1278)
1.3.4.2.6. Con: Collaboration on an international level will allow for a product of the highest possible quality.
1.3.4.2.7. Pro: Given current international debates over climate policy, it is unlikely there will be international agreement in organizing the implementation of geoengineering.
1.3.4.2.7.1. Pro: Even these same basic Paris Accords have been debated to be flawed! \(The Guardian\)  [theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/28/climate-scientists-debate-a-flaw-in-the-paris-climate-agreement)
1.3.4.2.7.2. Con: Particularly in times of crisis, the UN has been effective in coordinating scientific collaboration \(White House\) [clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov](https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/html/00426_7.html)
1.3.4.2.7.3. Pro: The US, a supposed leader in climate change, pulled out of the Paris Accords earlier this year \(Zhang\) [sciencedirect.com](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927817301028)
1.3.5. Pro: Could be a warning bell for policymakers
1.3.5.1. Pro: Policy issues aside, if there is a chance for a better future, it is our moral duty to pursue it
1.3.5.2. Pro: Solar geoengineering can appeal to both climate change activists on the left and those on the right who deny that climate change is anthropogenic because it could reduce climate change effects, regardless of the cause.
1.3.5.3. Con: -> See 1.3.3.
1.3.5.4. Pro: Even if solar geoengineering is not as efficient as we believe it to be, it will be a sign for policymakers world wide to take steps toward saving the earth. \(Harding and Moreno-Cruz 2016\). [agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016EF000462)
1.3.6. Pro: Could encourage mitigation
1.3.6.1. Pro: There's some evidence to suggest mere talk of solar geoengineering could "crowd in" mitigation \(Merk et al[iopscience.iop.org](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054009/meta)\).
1.3.6.1.1. Con: Evidence on the "moral hazard" question is decidedly mixed \([Burns et al](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016EF000461)\)
1.3.6.2. Pro: By highlighting the limits of climate engineering, R&D will underline the importance of mitigation. \(Cited as Keith, Lovelock by Betz\)
[www.argunet.org](http://www.argunet.org/2013/05/13/mapping-the-climate-engineering-controversy-a-case-of-argument-analysis-driven-policy-advice/)
1.3.6.3. Con: Will create new interest groups who oppose ambitious mitigation policies 
\(Corner & Pidgeon\)
[www.tandfonline.com](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00139150903479563)
1.3.6.4. Con: Solar geoengineering may be more sensitive to climate uncertainty than mitigation is.
\(Heutel, Moreno-Cruz, Shayegh\)
[www.nber.org](http://www.nber.org/papers/w21355.pdf)\)
1.3.6.5. Pro: The threat of geoengineering in the future may incentivize countries to increase emissions reductions in the present.
\(Urpelainen \[2012\] in Harding & Moreno-Cruz\)
[agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016EF000462)
1.3.6.5.1. Pro: In a largescale framed field experiment with more than 650 participants, we provide evidence that people do not back-pedal on mitigation when they are told that the climate change problem could be partly addressed via SAI. Instead, we observe that people who have been informed about SAI mitigate more than people who have not. 
Merk, Ponitzsch, Rehdanz
[iopscience.iop.org](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054009/pdf)
1.3.6.5.2. Pro: The credible threat of a country unilaterally implementing geoengineering may incentivize countries to agree to higher mitigation levels than in current international environmental agreements.
\(Millad-Ball\)
[agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016EF000462#eft2162-bib-0034)
1.3.6.6. Con: Getting global legitimization is as difficult for this as it is for mitigation. \(Gardiner\)
link.springer.com